Tobe, both the cordelette and the rope-only methods are fine. After being the standard in the U.S. for a quite a few years, I sense more and more people ditching their cordelettes and just anchoring with the rope. There are advantages and drawbacks to each method, and if you do some searching you can find heated arguments about which is best.

The one thing I'd say for sure is that anyone who tells you "yer gonna die" as a result of choosing one of these methods over the other doesn't know what they are talking about. The mark of experience is being able to use either method, or both combined, when they are appropriate. Most of the time both will work.

Here is a fast and effective method for using just the rope:

I am somewhat surprised, at this late date, to see the concept of equalization still promoted. It has become increasingly clear, both for theoretical reasons and as the result of a growing body of tests, that equalization is not practically achievable in the field. A rough rule of thumb for three-point anchors seems to be that one of the anchor points is likely to get half the load or more.

The appropriate concept is load distribution, not equalization. Of course, you do your best to direct the load equally to your anchor points, but understand that it ain't gonna happen. This makes it more important to have all anchor pieces solid, since one of them is very likely to get a majority of the load. The idea that you can put in a bunch of questionable pieces and "equalize" the whole mess so that it achieves suitable strength is a fantasy, which is not to say that sometimes, hopefully rarely, we are obligated to depend on something like that.

What is most important is to protect the belay from the effects of a leader fall directly onto it. Here again their are various strategies and arguments you can peruse on the web. I don't think there is any disagreement about the fact that a really strong protection point, close to but independent of the belay anchor, is the ideal situation. As with other ideal practices, this isn't always achievable.

It is extremely rare to hear of the failure of a belay anchor, but it does happen. Almost all belay anchors are good enough, but understand that almost none are tested by severe events, and most experienced climbers have never had their anchor-building techniques and strategies subjected to a major impact.

This whole anchor building thing rears its head on practically every climbing related site and is debated ad nauseum, and what I find amusing is that starting in 1983 as I did, one could scarcely find any pertinent info concerning anchor building let alone equalization, and now we debate it and argue whats best, whats worse, here's my diagram etc. I purchased Freedom of The Hills volume 4 when I started and there was no anchor building that I recall or equalization. I remember quite well when a climbing mag ran an article describing the magic X, and later I learned to tie a double bowline that could be equalized, I don't know exactly when the cordellette thing gained such widespread use, maybe in the last 10 years or so.But somehow we survived without such knowledge and I did a fair bit of ground up trad, and managed to get up Colorado multi pitch.

In the end we all fall back on the simple systems that lack equalizing perfection. Least fussy and safest is just tying in with the (dynamic) climbing rope itself. Virtually no one dies from a using a standard overhand-tied cordalette in spite of it's load-distributing imperfections. It's quick and easy so it remains the norm for many folks.

Although there has been vast experimentation with anchor set-ups and there are actually some solutions to the SRENE challenge.. what RGold says is true:"equalization is not practically achievable in the field."

Tremendous post rgold, that's a new way of thinking of anchors for me. I've always been an equalizer. I get confused easily by diagrams like the one you posted but I understand the idea that belayer and belay point are on independent pieces. I never did that and always equalized, with this huge cordalette I would carry for that purpose. The reason not to tie a string of clove hitches in the lead rope was that they wouldn't be equalized.

I still can't decide if it represents engineering elegance or some Rube Goldberg troll.

"rgold" ... is that a hint?

;-)

Ok...I know it is legit, and it I do not doubt that it is a good system. But at first glance it does look a little bit complicated. I think another photo showing an actual climber at an actual belay using the system would help illustrate this method in practice.

Thanks Werner, I'll have to miss the anchor demo at the cookie and a lot of other things because I'm trapped in Washington DC. Let's say you're anchor is in a vertical crack, three pieces in a row. rgold is saying that equalization doesn't work and one piece will take all the load anyway. If that's true you could hang off the lowest one, and belay off the highest one, and the middle one is the backup.

So can someone break down the belay swap procedure when using the rope for anchors? I love the idea but haven't used it because I lead and my girlfriend follows and I cant figure out how to get her on the anchor and me off the anchor and ready to climb without it turning into a clusterf#$k...

There is no "breakdown". Just don't do it. As has been previously stated it is good to know multiple methods and techniques, and to use them as appropriate to the situation.

When I do all the leading I do not use the rope to construct my anchor; doing so complicates the leading process and slows things down. It can be done but it is slower in the end and presents the possibility for error. I will use the rope if swinging leads that don't have "rope stretcher" pitches or if leading single pitch routes. If doing all the leading, I use a cordelette to distribute the load. Other times, I use components of both together.

Multiple methods; multiple techniques. No single method is appropriate for all situations...